Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 2016 Financing

Memorandum
TO:
Jack D. Homkow, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs
FROM:
Matthew A. Stanley, AICP, Senior Environmental Manager
DATE:
March 23, 2016 (Revised March 29, 2016)
RE:
State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Unlisted Uncoordinated Negative
Declaration, Negative Declaration Concurrence and Type II Determination for the
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 2016 Financing Project — Other
Independent Institutions Program
The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (“MSKCC”) has requested financing from
DASNY (“Dormitory Authority State of New York”) pursuant to DASNY’s Other Independent
Institutions Program for its 2016 Financing Project. Accordingly, the 2016 Financing Project is
subject to environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act
(“SEQRA”).
Based on a review of the attached Credit Summary, dated February 26, 2016, it has been
determined that for purposes of SEQRA, the Proposed Action would consist of DASNY’s
authorization of the issuance of an amount not to exceed $130,000,000 in 25-year fixed- and/or
variable-rate, tax-exempt and/or taxable Series 2016 bonds, in one or more series, to be sold
through a private placement and/or a public offering on behalf of Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center.
2016 Financing Project. The proceeds of the bond issuance would be used to finance the
2016 Financing Project which would involve the construction of a Clinical Laboratory Building at
327 East 64th Street, Manhattan, New York (New York County); the construction of an Extension
Clinic Expansion at 650 Commack Road, Commack, New York (Suffolk County); the Renovation of
M4 Nursing Unit at MSKCC’s facility located at 1275 York Avenue, Manhattan, New York (New
York County); and, the purchase of various medical equipment to be installed at MSKCC facilities
in Manhattan, New York County, New York. The four components of the 2016 Financing Project
are described further under SEQR Determination, below.
Description of the Institution. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (the “Center
Corporation”) is part of a group of corporations that make up the oldest and largest privately
operated not-for-profit cancer center in the world. The other corporations in the group include
Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases (the "Hospital"), Sloan-Kettering Institute for
Cancer Research, S.K.I. Realty, Inc., MSK Insurance US, Inc., the Louis V. Gerstner Jr. Graduate
School of Biomedical Sciences and MSK Insurance, Ltd., collectively (the “Related Corporations”)
and, collectively with the Center Corporation ("MSK"). The Hospital, a 514-bed licensed
Mr. Jack D. Homkow
March 23, 2016
Page 2
specialty hospital traces its roots to the New York Cancer Hospital, founded in 1884 as the
nation’s first cancer hospital. The Hospital is the premier institution for setting the standard of
care for cancer patients and countless discoveries in clinical research have occurred here that
have led to standard-setting innovations in all areas of cancer diagnosis and treatment. All
inpatient activity takes place at the main New York City campus between 67th and 68th Streets
on York Avenue. Outpatient services are provided at several diagnostic and treatment centers in
Manhattan and multiple regional network facilities.
SEQR Determination. DASNY completed this environmental review in accordance with
SEQRA, codified at Article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law (“ECL”) and
implementing regulations, promulgated at Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations (“N.Y.C.R.R.”), which collectively contain the requirements for the New York State
Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”) process.
Clinical Laboratory Building (Manhattan). The Clinical Laboratory Building project (the
“laboratory”) would involve the construction of a 90,000-gross-square-foot (“gsf”) laboratory
medicine facility at 327 East 64th Street between First and Second Avenues, Manhattan, New
York (New York County). The 75-foot-high laboratory would have 9 floors; 6 above ground and
3 below. The proposed laboratory is currently under construction. The foundation is complete,
and steel erection is on-going. The estimated date of completion is mid 2017.
The laboratory is considered as of right under the Zoning Resolution of the City of New
York. No zoning variance or other discretionary approvals from the City of New York were
required to facilitate the laboratory. The laboratory is under construction pursuant to New York
City Department of Buildings permit №. 121331816.
The construction of the laboratory, described above, constitutes an Unlisted Action as
specifically designated by 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.2(ak). As the sole remaining agency with a
discretionary approval for the laboratory, DASNY elected to conduct an uncoordinated review
under SEQR. DASNY analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern, as summarized in
the attached Short Environmental Assessment Form (“SEAF”) Parts I and II (attached). Based on
the above, and the additional information contained herein, DASNY, as Lead Agency, determined
that the laboratory would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared.
Extension Clinic Expansion (Commack). The Extension Clinic Expansion project (the
“extension clinic”) would involve the construction of a three-story, 36,461-gsf addition to
MSKCC’s existing one- and two-story, 52,725-gsf extension clinic located at 650 Commack Road,
Commack, New York (Suffolk County). The extension clinic project would also include a 773-gsf
storage addition. The extension clinic is currently under construction, and the estimated date of
completion is September 2017.
Mr. Jack D. Homkow
March 23, 2016
Page 3
Several approvals from the Town of Smithtown were required in order to facilitate
construction of the extension clinic, including site plan approval (Town of Smithtown Board of
Site Plan Review); zone change (Town of Smithtown Town Board); and zoning variance (Town of
Smithtown Board of Zoning Appeals). Prior to consideration of the requested approvals, the
extension clinic was the subject of a coordinated SEQR review by the Town of Smithtown Town
Board as an Unlisted action. The Town of Smithtown Town Board issued a SEQR Negative
Declaration Notice of Determination of Nonsignificance on November 4, 2014 (attached). The
approvals were granted subsequent to the completion of SEQR.
While DASNY was not an involved agency during the Town of Smithtown Town Board’s
coordinated SEQR review in 2014, it is bound by the determination of the lead agency.1 DASNY
independently analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and concurred with the
Town of Smithtown Town Board’s Negative Declaration that the extension clinic would not have
a significant adverse impact on the environment. No further SEQR review is required.
Renovation of M4 Nursing Unit (Manhattan). The Renovation of M4 Nursing Unit project
would involve renovations and upgrades to the existing 4th floor inpatient unit to accommodate
the needs of the inpatient Neuro/Neurosurgery unit at MSKCC’s main facility located at 1275
York Avenue, Manhattan, New York (New York County). Replacement, rehabilitation or
reconstruction of a structure or facility, in kind, on the same site, including upgrading buildings
to meet building or fire codes, unless such action meets or exceeds any of the thresholds in Part
617.4 is a Type II action as specifically designated by 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.5(c)(2). Type II “actions
have been determined not to have significant impact on the environment or are otherwise
precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, article 8.”2
Therefore, no further SEQR determination or procedure is required for any project identified as
Type II.
Medical Equipment Purchases (various locations). Various medical equipment would be
purchased and installed at MSKCC facilities in Manhattan, New York County, including linear
accelerators, magnetic resonance imaging machines, a computed tomography angiography
scanner, and data center equipment. The purchase or sale of furnishings, equipment or
supplies, including surplus government property, other than the following: land, radioactive
material, pesticides, herbicides, or other hazardous materials, is a Type II action as specifically
designated by 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.5(c)(25). Type II “actions have been determined not to have
significant impact on the environment or are otherwise precluded from environmental review
1
2
6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.6(b)(3)(iii).
6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.5(a).
Mr. Jack D. Homkow
March 23, 2016
Page 4
under Environmental Conservation Law, article 8.”3 Therefore, no further SEQR determination
or procedure is required for any project identified as Type II.
SHPA Determination. The Proposed Project was also reviewed in conformance with the
New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (“SHPA”), especially the implementing
regulations of Section 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Law (“PRHPL”),
as well as with the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), dated March
18, 1998, between DASNY and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation (“OPRHP”).
The laboratory site is not listed in or eligible for listing in the State and/or National
Registers of Historic Places. It is not a designated New York City Landmark. The laboratory site
is considered to be archaeologically sensitive, however, at the time that MSKCC approached
DASNY about the 2016 Financing Project, the laboratory was already under construction.
The extension clinic site is not listed in or eligible for listing in the State and/or National
Registers of Historic Places. It is not considered to be archaeologically sensitive.
It is the opinion of DASNY that the 2016 Financing Project would have no impact on
historic or cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the National and/or State Registers of
Historic Places.
SSGPIPA Determination. Since the Proposed Action would include DASNY bond
financing, a Smart Growth Impact Statement (“SGIS”) for the Proposed Project was prepared
pursuant to the State of New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act
(“SSGPIPA”) procedures (see “Smart Growth Impact Statement Assessment Form [“SGISAF”],
attached). DASNY’s Smart Growth Advisory Committee reviewed the SGIS and attested that the
Proposed Project, to the extent practicable, would meet the smart growth criteria established by
the legislation. The compatibility of the Proposed Project with the ten criteria of the SSGPIPA,
article 6 of the ECL, is detailed in the SGISAF. As indicated on the form, the Proposed Project
would be generally supportive of SSGPIPA and no further SSGPIPA analysis is required.
Attachments
cc:
Dena T. Amodio, Esq. (via email); Matthew T. Bergin (via email); SEQR File
3
6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.5(a).
Credit Summary
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
New York, New York
February 26, 2016
Program: Other Independent Institutions
Purpose: New Money/Private Placement
New Issue Details
Approximately $125,000,000 in 25-year fixed and/or
variable rate, taxable and/or tax-exempt, Series 2016
Bonds are expected to be sold through a private
placement.
Purpose
The expansion of an extension
Commack, New York ($30 million).

clinic
and multiple regional network facilities. While the focus of
these entities is to promote the prevention, treatment and
cure for cancer, the Center Corporation’s main purpose is
to coordinate the efforts of the entire group. A common
board of managers controls all corporate entities. As of
September 30, 2015, MSKCC reported total net assets of
approximately $5.37 billion.
in

The construction of a new Laboratory Medicine
th
Building at 327 East 64 Street, Manhattan ($30
million).

Major medical equipment purchases ($49 million)
and hospital renovations ($16 million).
Security
 A
General Obligation of the Center
Corporation.
 Guarantees from Sloan-Kettering Institute for
Cancer Research and S.K.I. Realty Inc.
Strengths

Market Position – MSKCC is world-renowned as a
leader in the treatment of cancer and cancer
research and has strengthened its regional presence
in recent years.

Balance Sheet – Unrestricted net assets are
approximately $3.9 billion.

Liquidity Position – MSKCC has a solid liquidity
position with over $620 million in cash and short term
investments.

Fundraising – MSKCC has proven that it can raise
capital on a continuous basis. Total contributions and
pledges raised through fundraising efforts were over
$750 million for the past two years combined.

Revenue Diversity – Revenue sources are diversified
with patient care, research, fundraising and royalties
all contributing to a healthy revenue stream that
provides flexibility. Through September 30 2015,
total year to date revenue was approximately $2.7
billion with net operating income of approximately
$143.1 million.
Expected Ratings: NR/NR/NR
Overview
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (the “Center
Corporation”) is part of a group of corporations that make
up the oldest and largest privately operated not-for-profit
cancer center in the world. The other corporations in the
group include Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied
Diseases (the "Hospital"), Sloan-Kettering Institute for
Cancer Research, S.K.I. Realty, Inc., MSK Insurance US,
Inc., the Louis V. Gerstner Jr. Graduate School of
Biomedical Sciences and MSK Insurance, Ltd.,
collectively (the “Related Corporations”) and, collectively
with the Center Corporation ("MSKCC"). The Hospital, a
514-bed licensed specialty hospital traces its roots to the
New York Cancer Hospital, founded in 1884 as the
nation’s first cancer hospital. The Hospital is the premier
institution for setting the standard of care for cancer
patients and countless discoveries in clinical research
have occurred here that have led to standard-setting
innovations in all areas of cancer diagnosis and
treatment. All inpatient activity takes place at the main
New York City campus between 67th and 68th Streets on
York Avenue. The shift in the delivery of cancer care to
the outpatient setting over the past fifteen years required
that the Hospital look beyond the immediate campus for
space and convenient access for its patients.
In
response to this change, MSKCC opened and expanded
several diagnostic and treatment centers in Manhattan
Risks
 Future Capital Plan – MSKCC typically spends
approximately $200 million annually on routine
capital expenditures and this is consistent with its
plan to spend about $2.2 billion on its clinical
expansion program over the next ten years. It is
anticipated that a combination of equity, fund raising
and borrowing will fund these projects.
 Reimbursement – MSKCC is exposed to
uncertainties in the health care environment and the
potential for future reductions in patient service
reimbursement.
DIVISION OF PUBLIC FINANCE AND PORTFOLIO MONITORING
PORTIA LEE, MANAGING DIRECTOR
PREPARED BY: MATTHEW T. BERGIN (518) 257-3140
Credit Summary
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
New York, New York
Program: Other Independent Institutions
February 26, 2016
Purpose: New Money/Private Placement
Recommendation
The attached staff report recommends that the Board
adopt a Resolution to Proceed in an amount not to
exceed $130,000,000 for a term of 25 years for
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. The bonds are
proposed to be privately placed. The recommendation is
based on the Center Corporation and Related
Corporations’ strong balance sheet and income
statement, the Center Corporation’s underlying rating in
the “AA” category from all three rating agencies and
DASNY’s past experience with the Center Corporation.
DIVISION OF PUBLIC FINANCE AND PORTFOLIO MONITORING
PORTIA LEE, MANAGING DIRECTOR
PREPARED BY: MATTHEW T. BERGIN (518) 257-3140
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 2016 Financing
Laboratory Medicine Building (327 East 64th Street, Manhattan)
Project Description
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has requested financing from the Dormitory
Authority State of New York (“DASNY”) pursuant to DASNY’s Other Independent Institutions
Program for its 2015 Financing Project. The Proposed Action would consist of DASNY’s
authorization of the issuance of bonds on behalf of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
The proceeds of the bond issuance would be used to finance a series of new construction and
other projects, including a Laboratory Medicine Building located at 327 East 64th Street,
Manhattan, New York.
As the other elements of the proposed financing have either been the subject of a
previous State Environmental Quality Review (“SEQR”) review or are Type II actions under
SEQR, the SEQR review that follows is focused on the Laboratory Medicine Building (the
“Proposed Project”).1
The Proposed Project would involve the construction of a 90,000-gross-square-foot
(“gsf”) state-of-the-art laboratory medicine facility at 327 East 64th Street between First and
Second Avenues, Manhattan, New York. The proposed 75-foot-high facility would have 9
floors; 6 above ground and 3 below. External design features include rear-yard setbacks on
floors 2 and 5, and rear- and front-yard setbacks on the sixth floor. Approximately 244 fulltime-equivalent (“FTE”) employees would work at the proposed facility.
Laboratory services performed at the facility will include specialized testing in
hematology/hemostasis, clinical chemistry, microbiology/infectious disease, and flow
cytometry (a technique used to examine microscopic particles such as cells and chromosomes).
A full-service blood bank and stem cell therapy laboratory will be used to prepare blood and cell
products for transfusion at the point of care. In addition, the new facility will support a training
program for the next generation of laboratory medicine professionals.
The proposed structure is currently under construction. The foundation is complete,
and steel erection is on-going. The estimated date of completion is mid 2017.
SEQR Classification. The Proposed Project is considered as of right under the Zoning
Resolution of the City of New York. No zoning variance or other discretionary approvals from
1
The Extension Clinic project located at 650 Commack Road, Commack (Suffolk County) was the subject
of a SEQR review by the Town Board of the Town of Smithtown, resulting in a Negative Declaration Determination
of Non-Significance issued on November 4, 2014. The equipment purchases at 1275 York Avenue, Manhattan
(New York County) are classified as a Type II action under SEQR and no further review is required.
the City of New York were required to facilitate the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is
under construction pursuant to New York City Department of Buildings permit №. 121331816.
The construction of the Proposed Project, described above, constitutes an Unlisted
Action as specifically designated by 6 N.Y.C.R.R. § 617.2(ak). As the sole remaining agency with
a discretionary approval for the Proposed Project, DASNY elected to conduct an uncoordinated
review under SEQR.
Agency Use Only [If applicable]
Project: MSKCC Laboratory 327 E64th NYC
Date:
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 2 - Impact Assessment
Part 2 is to be completed by the Lead Agency.
Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by
the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by
the concept “Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?”
No, or
small
impact
may
occur
1.
Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning
regulations?
✔
2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land?
✔
3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community?
✔
4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the
establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)?
✔
5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or
affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway?
✔
6.
✔
Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate
reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities?
7. Will the proposed action impact existing:
a. public / private water supplies?
✔
b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities?
✔
8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological,
architectural or aesthetic resources?
✔
9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands,
waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)?
✔
10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage
problems?
✔
11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health?
✔
PRINT FORM
Page 1 of 2
Moderate
to large
impact
may
occur
Agency Use Only [If applicable]
Project:
Date:
Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part 3 Determination of Significance
For every question in Part 2 that was answered “moderate to large impact may occur”, or if there is a need to explain why a
particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please
complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that
have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency
determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,
probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for shortterm, long-term and cumulative impacts.
Project site has an open New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) listed spill (No.
9111462). MSKCC obtained the property with the open spill on record with the NYSDEC. The NYSDEC was
informed of the building raze and re-build and approved a plan to remove all contaminated soil encountered during
excavation activities for the new building. During the excavation for the building foundation, petroleum-contaminated
soil was removed and disposed off-site. A NYSDEC-approved remedial action plan is in place. Per this plan,
NYSDEC is requiring that MSKCC excavate a specific area in the sidewalk, near the former remote fill for the three
underground storage tanks, to determine if the soil and groundwater in the area is impacted. Due to the limited site
constraints (this area is currently under the hoist) the site exploration was postponed on /or before Spring of 2016.
Once this is done the spill No. 9111462 shall be closed.
Given the remedial activities being carried out by MSKCC, no significant adverse impacts are expected as a result of
this spill.
Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an
environmental impact statement is required.
✔ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation,
that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.
Dormitory Authority - State of New York
_________________________________________________
Name of Lead Agency
March 23, 2016
_______________________________________________
Date
Jack D. Homkow
_________________________________________________
Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
Director
_______________________________________________
Title of Responsible Officer
_________________________________________________
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
_______________________________________________
Signature of Preparer (if different from Responsible Officer)
PRINT FORM
Page 2 of 2
SMART GROWTH IMPACT STATEMENT ASSESSMENT FORM
Date:
Project Name:
March 23, 2016
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
2016 Financing Project
Other Independent Institutions Program
N/A
Matthew A. Stanley, AICP
Senior Environmental Manager
Project Number:
Completed by:
This Smart Growth Impact Statement Assessment Form (“SGISAF”) is a tool to assist you and
Dormitory Authority State of New York (“DASNY”) Smart Growth Advisory Committee in deliberations
to determine whether a project is consistent with the State of New York State Smart Growth Public
Infrastructure Policy Act (“SSGPIPA”), article 6 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law
(“ECL”). Not all questions/answers may be relevant to all projects.
Description of Proposed Action and Proposed Project:
The Proposed Action would consist of DASNY’s authorization of the issuance of an amount not
to exceed $130,000,000 in 25-year fixed- and/or variable-rate, tax-exempt and/or taxable Series 2016
bonds, in one or more series, to be sold through a private placement and/or a public offering on
behalf of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (“MSKCC”). The proceeds of the bond issuance
would be used to finance the 2016 Financing Project.
The 2016 Financing Project would involve two components subject to SSGPIPA: the
construction of a Clinical Laboratory Building (the “laboratory”) at 327 East 64th Street, Manhattan,
New York (New York County), and the construction of an Extension Clinic Expansion (the “extension
clinic”) at 650 Commack Road, Commack, New York (Suffolk County).1
The following Smart Growth Impact Assessment covers both the Clinical Laboratory Building
and Extension Clinic Expansion (referred to collectively as the “Proposed Project”).
Smart Growth Impact Assessment: Have any other entities issued a Smart Growth Impact Statement
(“SGIS”) with regard to this project? (If so, attach same).
Yes
No
1
Two additional components of the 2016 Financing Project are considered Type II actions under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQR”) and are therefore, per DASNY’s SSGPIPA policy, not subject to SSGPIPA: the
Renovation of M4 Nursing Unit at MSKCC’s facility located at
***
, Manhattan, New York (New York County); and the
purchase of various medical equipment to be installed at MSKCC facilities in Manhattan and Westchester County, New York.
Page 1 of 6
1. Does the project advance or otherwise involve the use of, maintain, or improve existing
infrastructure? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
Both the laboratory and extension clinic would be located in developed areas and would take
advantage of existing infrastructure. Therefore the Proposed Project would be consistent with
this criterion.
2. Is the project located wholly or partially in a municipal center,* characterized by any of the
following: Check all that apply and explain briefly:
A city or a village
Within the interior of the boundaries of a generally-recognized college, university,
hospital, or nursing home campus
Area of concentrated and mixed land use that serves as a center for various activities
including, but not limited to: see below
Central business districts (such as the commercial and often geographic heart of a city,
“downtown”, “city center”)
Main streets (such as the primary retail street of a village, town, or small city. It is usually
a focal point for shops and retailers in the central business district, and is most often used
in reference to retailing and socializing)
Downtown areas (such as a city's core (or center) or central business district, usually in a
geographical, commercial, and community sense).
Brownfield Opportunity Areas (http://nyswaterfronts.com/BOA_projects.asp)
Downtown areas of Local Waterfront Revitalization Program areas
(http://nyswaterfronts.com/maps_regions.asp)
Locations of transit-oriented development (such as projects serving areas that have access
to mass or public transit for residents)
Environmental Justice Areas (http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/899.html)
Hardship areas
* DASNY interprets the term “municipal centers” to include existing, developed institutional
campuses such as universities, colleges and hospitals.
3. Is the project located adjacent to municipal centers (please see characteristics in question 2, above)
with clearly-defined borders, in an area designated for concentrated development in the future by a
municipal or regional comprehensive plan that exhibits strong land use, transportation,
infrastructure and economic connections to an existing municipal center? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
This is not relevant because the project is consistent with criterion 2 above.
Page 2 of 6
4. Is the project located in an area designated by a municipal or comprehensive plan, and
appropriately zoned, as a future municipal center? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
This is not relevant because the project is consistent with criterion 2 above.
5. Is the project located wholly or partially in a developed area or an area designated for concentrated
infill development in accordance with a municipally-approved comprehensive land use plan, a local
waterfront revitalization plan, brownfield opportunity area plan or other development plan? Check
one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
This is not relevant because the project is consistent with criterion 2 above.
6. Does the project preserve and enhance the state’s resources, including agricultural lands, forests,
surface and groundwater, air quality, recreation and open space, scenic areas, and/or significant
historic and archeological resources? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
Both the laboratory and extension clinic were reviewed under the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The respective SEQRA reviews conducted by DASNY
(laboratory) and the Town of Smithtown (extension clinic) concluded that the projects
would have no adverse impacts on agricultural land, forest, surface and groundwater, air
quality, recreation and open space, scenic areas or significant historic and archeological
resources, therefore the Proposed Project would be consistent with this criterion.
7. Does the project foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown revitalization,
brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the diversity and
affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation and commercial
development and/or the integration of all income and age groups? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The laboratory would be located on East 64th Street in Manhattan, New York City. The
project would strengthen the neighborhood’s mix of institutional, residential and
commercial uses.
The extension clinic would be located adjacent to MSKCC’s existing facility in Commack,
Suffolk County. The project would strengthen MSKCC’s presence in the neighborhood
and allow it to better serve its patients in the area.
Therefore the Proposed Project would be consistent with this criterion.
Page 3 of 6
8. Does the project provide mobility through transportation choices, including improved public
transportation and reduced automobile dependency? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The respective project sites are accessible by public transportation, therefore the
Proposed Project would be consistent with this criterion.
9. Does the project demonstrate coordination among state, regional, and local planning and
governmental officials? (Demonstration may include State Environmental Quality Review [“SEQR”]
coordination with involved and interested agencies, district formation, agreements between
involved parties, letters of support, State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [“SPDES”] permit
issuance/revision notices, etc.). Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The extension clinic was the subject of a coordinated SEQRA review conducted by the
Town of Smithtown. The laboratory was the subject of a building permit review process
conducted by the New York City Department of Buildings. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would be consistent with this criterion.
10. Does the project involve community-based planning and collaboration? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
In recent years, MSKCC has expanded treatment services in order to serve more patients
in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and surrounding communities. As patient volume has grown, so
has patients’ need for laboratory services. The laboratory project is aimed at meeting this
demand. Similarly, the extension clinic is proposed in order to meet the increased need
for cancer treatment in communities on Long Island. Therefore the Proposed Project
would be consistent with this criterion.
11. Is the project consistent with local building and land use codes? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The Proposed Project would meet all appropriate codes, therefore, it would be consistent
with this criterion.
12. Does the project promote sustainability by strengthening existing and creating new communities
which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do not compromise the needs of future generations?
Yes
No
Not Relevant
Page 4 of 6
The respective project sites are accessible by public transportation, therefore the
Proposed Project would be consistent with this criterion.
13. During the development of the project, was there broad-based public involvement? (Documentation
may include SEQR coordination with involved and interested agencies, SPDES permit
issuance/revision notice, approval of Bond Resolution, formation of district, evidence of public
hearings, Environmental Notice Bulletin [“ENB”] or other published notices, letters of support, etc.).
Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
The extension clinic was the subject of a coordinated SEQRA review conducted by the
Town of Smithtown. The laboratory was the subject of a building permit review process
conducted by the New York City Department of Buildings. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would be consistent with this criterion.
14. Does the Recipient have an ongoing governance structure to sustain the implementation of
community planning? Check one and describe:
Yes
No
Not Relevant
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center maintains a network of health care facilities
across the New York metropolitan area. MSKCC supports initiatives to reach the general
public, the medically underserved, and minority populations. MSKCC’s programs and
services are designed to improve access to cancer information, prevention, care, and
treatment advances. Additionally, MSKCC aims to reduce the impact of cancer health
disparities among minority and medically underserved populations. Therefore the
Proposed Project would be consistent with this criterion.
Page 5 of 6
DASNY has reviewed the available information regarding this project and finds:
The project was developed in general consistency with the relevant Smart Growth Criteria.
The project was not developed in general consistency with the relevant Smart Growth Criteria.
It was impracticable to develop this project in a manner consistent with the relevant Smart Growth
Criteria for the following reasons:
ATTESTATION
I, President of DASNY/designee of the President of DASNY, hereby attest that the Proposed
Project, to the extent practicable, meets the relevant criteria set forth above and that to the extent that
it is not practical to meet any relevant criterion, for the reasons given above.
Signature
Jack D. Homkow, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs
Print Name and Title
March 23, 2016
Date
Page 6 of 6